Thread Tools

Kraft and the Pats get called cheap a lot, on this board and by the media. It seems to be a reaction to signings that aren't made, and to perceived star players not acquired.

Isn't the only measure of "cheapness" the % of the cap that a team spends to? The other metrics are about HOW the money is spent - the distribution of the money across the players and positions. "Cheap" is about HOW MUCH money is spent - the overall player budget.

There also seems to be a little disagreement about how much of tomorrow's cap to spend on today's players, through signing bonuses that tend to get more highly rated players today but leave more dead cap room later. But that issue doesn't seem to drive the issue in this debate.

I'd love to hear other views on this. It seems very simple to me but that is always a warning sign.

Kraft and the Pats get called cheap a lot, on this board and by the media. It seems to be a reaction to signings that aren't made, and to perceived star players not acquired.

Isn't the only measure of "cheapness" the % of the cap that a team spends to? The other metrics are about HOW the money is spent - the distribution of the money across the players and positions. "Cheap" is about HOW MUCH money is spent - the overall player budget.

There also seems to be a little disagreement about how much of tomorrow's cap to spend on today's players, through signing bonuses that tend to get more highly rated players today but leave more dead cap room later. But that issue doesn't seem to drive the issue in this debate.

I'd love to hear other views on this. It seems very simple to me but that is always a warning sign.

Click to expand...

Cheapness by my measure is spending small chunks of cash on old guys instead of giving a single guy market value even though that player could be a game changer. I get that they don't like paying outside of the system. Rather spend 12 million on say Julius Peppers than 2 million on Haynesworth 6 million on ocho stinko and 4 million on Fanene in a span of a calendar year.

Cheapness by my measure is spending small chunks of cash on old guys instead of giving a single guy market value even though that player could be a game changer. I get that they don't like paying outside of the system. Rather spend 12 million on say Julius Peppers than 2 million on Haynesworth 6 million on ocho stinko and 4 million on Fanene in a span of a calendar year.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with cheap. It has to do with dividing the money.

If I spend $10 a day on food all month long that is $300 a month.
If you have one $271 dinner then spend $1 the other 29 days neither of us is any cheaper than the other.

You want a team that is filled with star players and scrubs.
The Patriots would rather have talent spread throughout the roster.

Your ignorance in calling the money spent on a player that didn't work out cheap, is ridiculous.

That has nothing to do with cheap. It has to do with dividing the money.

If I spend $10 a day on food all month long that is $300 a month.
If you have one $271 dinner then spend $1 the other 29 days neither of us is any cheaper than the other.

You want a team that is filled with star players and scrubs.
The Patriots would rather have talent spread throughout the roster.

Your ignorance in calling the money spent on a player that didn't work out cheap, is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole 101 back in effect from the homer brigade, I don't want it filled with studs I would rather some of the vet signings be pushed into 1 player that actually makes a difference. Didn't say sign Peppers, Williams, Wallace, and every other top free agent. How about instead of signing 6 people for bargain deals, sign 1 impact guy and 2-3 bargains.

It is cheapness they do not like to pay for top end talent unless they are groomed in their system and have put in years of vastly overplaying their contracts. Even then they push them out the door sometimes. Example #1 Wes Welker.

I guess them spending to the cap means they aren't cheap. Don't they not like to give out big signing bonuses like other teams? Because they don't wanna spend the cash. It's a business buddy they're squeezing all the success they can out of Tom Brady, once he retires you'll see the bandwagon break apart.

Hyperbole 101 back in effect from the homer brigade, I don't want it filled with studs I would rather some of the vet signings be pushed into 1 player that actually makes a difference. Didn't say sign Peppers, Williams, Wallace, and every other top free agent. How about instead of signing 6 people for bargain deals, sign 1 impact guy and 2-3 bargains.

Click to expand...

Its called an analogy.

It is cheapness they do not like to pay for top end talent unless they are groomed in their system and have put in years of vastly overplaying their contracts. Even then they push them out the door sometimes. Example #1 Wes Welker.

Click to expand...

They paid more for Amendola than Welker got. How is that cheap?
How is spending as much money as they can, in a way you disapprove of cheap? Cheap is not spending it.
Please show me the franchsie that has produced good results by signing top dollar free agents, so you can support your argument that you have a better way to divide the money than BB does.

I guess them spending to the cap means they aren't cheap. Don't they not like to give out big signing bonuses like other teams? Because they don't wanna spend the cash. It's a business buddy they're squeezing all the success they can out of Tom Brady, once he retires you'll see the bandwagon break apart.

Click to expand...

They pay signing bonusses all the time. But that doesnt matter, because whatever you spend hits the cap. There is not a way to spend the cap that costs less in real money over the long term. In the short term it could cost a lot more or a lot less, but in the long run its the same thing.
Do you even understand how the cap works?

brady2moss you calling people homers who believe that this organization is obviously better off doing what they have been doing to keep the team near the top every year is comical.

Then you cherry pick your points to favor your side. "Ya the pats diddnt spend money on peppers but got Ocho and Hainsworth. You know you are brilliant and just like all the other guys here who know the drafts and decisions are busts AFTER ITS ALL PLAYED OUT.

Teams gamble...they try things. They dont work out...

You dont even know what a homer is yet you just keep using the word over and over.

No matter how many times we explain it to you and your pals it will never sink in.

But the thing I dont get is that if the Pats FO is so terrible and cheap as you and your buds seem to constantly insinuate....then why is the team still an Elite unit year after year.

And dont give me this TB12 crap. This is a team.

And also If the FO and team can get us so close to a SB and the STAR Players arent clutch in the big moment isnt it time we start looking for clutch players.

You have to realize that most people are extremely stupid. That's the only conclusion I can draw after following the NFL for a long time in the salary cap era. The idea that Daniel Snyder is "in it to win it" while Robert Kraft is "cheap" is one of the most foolish notions that I've ever heard. Even worse is that the dumb talking heads and former players say the same the thing, echoing the same misguided understanding of the cap system.

The teams that are most often called "cheap" are the Patriots, Steelers, and Manning-era Colts, merely because they weren't diving into free agency, shelling all their money out to a few players in the desperate hope of improving their team. Last year, the Buffalo Bills were hailed as "aggressive" because they spent a zillion dollars on a couple of free agents that were nowhere near that monetary translation on the field. Of course, now they are "cheap" again because they no longer have the luxury of those contracts, since the cap is eaten up in subsequent years.

Even more mind-numbing stupid is that the Patriots signed Amendola to MORE money! More money to another player, but they were too cheap to sign Welker? Please, explain.

I've said it 100 times on here, but I'll say it again: in the NFL, there is no such thing as value unless you consider the cost. This isn't like MLB where a player needs to produce at a certain level to be an asset. In the NFL, Aaron Rodgers can be a liability, as can Calvin Johnson, Darrelle Revis, or Tom Brady. Players with marginal skills, such as Danny Woodhead, can be more valuable to a team based on their costroduction. Unfortunately, most people will never grasp that concept.

Please show me the franchsie that has produced good results by signing top dollar free agents, so you can support your argument that you have a better way to divide the money than BB does.

Click to expand...

And this is where the whiners argument has an epic fail. Risking big money in FA on a few guys is a proven failure see Redskins, Jets, Eagles of the past couple of years. Having a solid roster from top to bottom is proven to work. See Colts, Steelers, Eagles for the first decade of the 2000's...

Hyperbole 101 back in effect from the homer brigade, I don't want it filled with studs I would rather some of the vet signings be pushed into 1 player that actually makes a difference. Didn't say sign Peppers, Williams, Wallace, and every other top free agent. How about instead of signing 6 people for bargain deals, sign 1 impact guy and 2-3 bargains.

It is cheapness they do not like to pay for top end talent unless they are groomed in their system and have put in years of vastly overplaying their contracts. Even then they push them out the door sometimes. Example #1 Wes Welker.

I guess them spending to the cap means they aren't cheap. Don't they not like to give out big signing bonuses like other teams? Because they don't wanna spend the cash. It's a business buddy they're squeezing all the success they can out of Tom Brady, once he retires you'll see the bandwagon break apart.

Click to expand...

Don't big signing bonuses have cap ramifications?

As andyjohnson already pointed out, you're addressing how they distribute their spending, not how much they spend -- and they're only "cheap" if they don't spend much, which isn't the case.

And this is where the whiners argument has an epic fail. Risking big money in FA on a few guys is a proven failure see Redskins, Jets, Eagles of the past couple of years. Having a solid roster from top to bottom is proven to work. See Colts, Steelers, Eagles for the first decade of the 2000's...

Click to expand...

The problem is we have two things working against is

The 12-18 year olds on here dont care about good solid players top to bottom. They want shiny new toys and bling. They want guys with huge stats with big paychecks cause its sexy and sounds like the team is diving in.

And when the team does the smart thing be making sure the lineups have contingency after contingency and a good team vibe and atmosphere the TEAM wins.

These posters wouldnt know anything about a team because they probably never played on a team. Isnt it obvious by now that a bunch of star players on a team dosent mean success.

Plus the problem is these posters dont know what it is like to have a real football franchise. Imagine what they would do with the Pats pre 2001. Pre 1994 for that matter.

They have only known great success but think altering from the formula that brought the success will someone bring more success.

How can the team be any better (comparatively to the rest of the league)

If Samuel and WW caught those passes we would have 5 rings. Why dosent anyone blame them?

If people want to cherry pick the failures of this organization then let's do the same with other organizations...let's add all star talent like the Eagles and Bills did...how did that work out for them?

Let's cherry pick Pats moves as well; the reality is that the Patriots won more super bowls with guys like David Patten, David Givens, Troy Brown, than they did with Randy Moss. Roman Phifer and Brian Cox old guys past their prime brought more titles than the last free agent stud Adalius Thomas.

Some people just don't get it. Ahhh makes me long for the days of JR Redmond.

The Patriots way of spending can obviously be frustrating as a fan when there's a free agent you like and know they probably won't get them.

That being said, I very much prefer the Patriot way over a team like Dallas, who spends a truck load of cash on Brandon Carr, then has to restructure his contract barely a full calender year into it so they can get a couple $100,000 above the salary cap. Is that smarter? Does signing players one year and apparently not paying any attention to what things will look like the following year a smart thing?

Again, of course there's been free agents I would have liked to see us get, I'm human. But while the majority of the league was cutting players left and right a couple weeks ago, the team that was in the AFC Championship last season was sitting on $18 million BEFORE Brady restructured.

And for those that think we for sure would have another Super Bowl title or two had we dished out the money for a top free agent recently, JR Redmond, David Tyree, Tracy Porter, Mario Manningham and Jacoby Jones say hello.

Not sure how this thread spiraled so quickly, but the answer to the original post is, obviously, yes. The word "cheap" is silly. The team is going to spend $128 million on players. To the extent it spends a little less, it will use the left over to carryover to next year's cap to do the same.

"Cheap" is stuff that agents say. They only have to deal with the needs on their client. A FO has a responsibility to build a team. The word "cheap" would suggest that when a team doesn't pay $15 million to player X, it's doing so to save its money. Of course it's not. It's making a decision how all resources should be spent -- that $15 million is going to get spent, just not on player X. It has nothing against player X. I'm sure Bill Belichick doesn't begrudge a single player a penny. I'm sure he wishes his guys could all make zillions. It doesn't work that way.

"Cheap" is just a stupid word used to say that one does not like the way a team allocates its $123 million (or its adjusted cap). I think it's all a balance. You can only play the ball as it lies. If your team is in great shape top to bottom and you have $10 million, then sure give it to one or two players. If you have multiple needs, you have to be more judicious.

Put it this way -- if someone said to Belichick and Kraft, you can spend $150 million on players, but the rest of the league can only spend $123 million, do you think they would do it? Of course they would. In a second. The $27 million is not why they don't. It's the salary cap.

Cheapness by my measure is spending small chunks of cash on old guys instead of giving a single guy market value even though that player could be a game changer. I get that they don't like paying outside of the system. Rather spend 12 million on say Julius Peppers than 2 million on Haynesworth 6 million on ocho stinko and 4 million on Fanene in a span of a calendar year.

Click to expand...

Cheap is a pretty commonly understood, borderline universal term. If you want to try to redefine it according to your own measure, then knock yourself out, but you should probably let people know that you're doing that when you attempt to.